44. No one should be in any doubt that using the
OCA to pay people to campaign for a political party is a serious
offence against the rules of the House.

45. The distinction between what is "parliamentary"
and what is "personal or party-political" is not always
self-evident, and it may be that there is no more than a "grey
line" (as it was described in the course of our evidence
sessions[35]) separating
these categories. Particularly where Members` constituency activities
and responsibilities are concerned, we accept that it is extremely
difficult to make a distinction. We have to apply the rules as
they stand. If Members are in doubt about the application of the
rules to particular circumstances they should seek advice from
the Fees Office. We invite the House and the Fees Office to consider
whether clearer guidance could be issued as to the kinds of activities
which would be regarded as acceptable or unacceptable for the
purposes of the OCA.

47. Members have a duty to account to the Fees Office
and to the Inland Revenue for their stewardship of public money.
Many Members` staff work in the constituency and may have only
occasional contact with their employer. It is not unreasonable
for such a relationship to be based largely on trust.

I do recall receiving
a payment for around this amount [£406.78]
following the election campaign. My recollection is that this
was a payment for expenses incurred by me relating to my work
as a volunteer.[38]

Accordingly we do not endorse the Commissioner`s
finding. Throughout, Ms Hilliard has insisted that she was a volunteer.
She should have recollected the nature of the payment when she
answered the Commissioner`s questions.

50. Mr Rowley claimed to have been put under pressure
by Dr Reid. While he suggested that other witnesses "certainly
felt under massive pressure", he has acknowledged that "none
of them have actually said that they were threatened as such"
(Q196). Mr Rafferty told us that he had not come under any external
pressure (Q142). Dr Reid has denied putting pressure on any of
the witnesses (Q338).

51. Mr Rowley has described a conversation that he
had with Dr Reid in a hotel in Edinburgh. He said that during
the course of that conversation he was warned by Dr Reid that
he could face criminal prosecution if he gave evidence to the
Commissioner that implicated him in any misconduct:

John said to me that if
I was to admit to the Commissioner any wrongdoing and he did not,
and therefore was cleared of any wrongdoing, then I could face
criminal prosecution (Q151).

Mr Rowley interpreted this as a threat. Dr Reid,
in his evidence to us, recalled the conversation and agreed that
he did mention the possible consequences of any speculation by
Mr Rowley implicating either of them. He denied that his comments
were intended to be threatening and characterised the conversation
as having been friendly:

That was the second conversation.
It was very friendly. He left. You have a statement from Lesley
Quinn. I understand Mr Rowley said today I threatened him. Immediately
after our meeting he met Lesley Quinn and said he had a good and
friendly meeting with me, no question of a threat.
(Q292)

52. Mr Rowley has described a further conversation
with Dr Reid, this time on the telephone. At the time Mr Rowley
was hoping to be selected as the Labour Party`s parliamentary
candidate for Central Fife; had he been selected he would then
have had to receive endorsement from Labour`s National Executive
Committee.

John in a phone conversation
said to me that I would have to be endorsed by the Labour Party
... I perceived that to be a threat because the conversation was
about this particular situation [the Commissioner`s
inquiry] (Q153).

Dr Reid could not recall having such a conversation:

What Mr Rowley said to
you today about some other conversation, which I certainly cannot
recall taking place, where the candidate endorsement was raised
as a threat, is entirely different from what he said to Ms Filkin,
where he claimed it was during the telephone conversation. I do
not for a minute cast aspersions on Mr Rowley's truthfulness,
but I do indicate to you that he is not always a reliable communicator
of what took place and when it took place.
(Q294)

53. The Commissioner concluded her record of her
conversation with Mr Rowley on 21 March 2000 with the following
note:

During the course of the
interview Alex Rowley made it clear to me that he was most uncomfortable
about giving me this information. He felt his loyalties were being
stretched in that he was loyal to the Party and the people he
knew in it but he felt he had to be truthful to me since I was
acting on behalf of Parliament. However, he was most anxious that
having provided me with an account that it might jeopardise his
future in the Party. He said that John Reid had told him if he
"gave evidence which admitted doing wrong I [he] could face
criminal prosecution and risked not being adopted by the Party
as a Parliamentary Candidate."[41]

54. Mr Rowley told us that as a result of his perception
of having been put under pressure in his previous conversations
with Dr Reid, he made a tape of a further telephone conversation.
Mr Rowley was at first reluctant to give the tape to the Commissioner,
but did so when he perceived that Dr Reid was implying that he
was not telling the truth.[42]
Mr Rowley was wrong to record the conversation without Dr Reid`s
knowledge. He accepts that "it was a very extreme course
of action" (Q166). The tape remains as evidence for the investigation.[43]
Mr Rowley does not claim that the taped conversation contains
any threats on the part of Dr Reid (Q164). Dr Reid said that in
this and other conversations he told Mr Rowley to tell the truth
but advised him that he should not speculate on matters which
he did not know about.[44]

55. The Commissioner also suggested in her report
that in the taped conversation Dr Reid advised Mr Rowley not to
give evidence to her under oath. Dr Reid told us that this was
"advice"[45]on
a matter of factbecause he perceived Mr Rowley to be in
need of reassurance about the prospect:

Alex Rowley had mentioned
this oath question. Alex was very concerned. The very first conversation
he had with me was when Dean Nelson had apparently said something
to him about he may be forced to give this on oath... Alex had
continually raised this question that we might be in court and
have to answer questions under oath and so on. I had assured him
that it was fine, that he did not know a whole lot of things,
like I had checked with the Fees Office, that the work was being
done for me, that I had evidence the work was being done, that
my secretary was off, but he raised it in every conversation.
When he raised it in this conversation I said to him, "Alex,
you do not need to take the oath" because I was aware of
the fact that he did not need to take an oath. I told him what
subsequently Ms Filkin has published as part of her own procedures.
(Q358)

I did not bring up the question of the oath, I
did not say to him  Let me put it this way, it is not as
if there was something in this where I said to Alex, "Look,
Alex, we all know the reality but for the sake of the Party we
must tell a lie", if you look through the rest of that you
will find that on every occasion I say what I said to Alex Rowley
on the first occasion, "Alex, you must tell the truth, it
must be the whole truth but it must be nothing but the truth",
you must not go into speculation because if you go into speculation,
that is a lie. (Q376)

Dr Reid also told us that at the time of the first
telephone conversation Mr Rowley

was in a panic because
the journalist, as you see from the transcripts, had said to him,
"You may be put in court and put on oath. You can`t lie",
and so on. (Q292)

The Commissioner has told us that Mr Rowley made
it clear to her that he would be willing to give evidence on oath
if asked to do so.

56. The Commissioner`s conclusion was that, while
no threats were made during the conversation, "it is clear,
both from his choice of words and the tone he adopts, that Dr
Reid is seeking to agree a line with Mr Rowley which falls short
of a full and comprehensive account"[46],
and that Dr Reid`s remarks "imply an intention, in responding
to [her] inquiries, to give [her] the bare minimum
of information whilst avoiding outright untruthfulness, in the
hope that other witnesses will not substantiate the allegations".[47]
The Commissioner regarded Dr Reid`s conduct as an attempt to frustrate
her investigation.[48]

57. The evidence for Dr Reid having put pressure
on Mr Rowley is disputed by the two men. Mr Rowley`s evidence
was that he felt that he had been threatened, and that this frightened
him.

It was not threats by
somebody in the community, this was someone who was the Secretary
of State for Scotland, a member of the British Cabinet, basically
telling me that if I told the truth then certain things may or
may not happen. I took that very seriously as a threat.
(Q163)

Dr Reid, in a letter to the Commissioner, suggested
that:

Finally, there is the
matter of the alleged "threats" to Mr Rowley. As you
will see, to the best of my recollection I have discussed this
matter with Mr Rowleyin very general termson only
two occasions. On both occasions these conversations were undertaken
at the behest and on the initiative of Mr Rowley not me, as can
be testified to by both witnesses and the pager message which
I have sent to you. The content of the conversations is outlined
in these documents and cannot, other than on the most malevolent
interpretation, be considered as anything remotely like a "threat".[49]

58. The independent evidence of Dr Reid`s dealings
with Mr Rowley is the tape of the telephone conversation. This
contains no threats. Dr Reid may have been incautious in giving
Mr Rowley such definite advice as to how he should respond to
requests for information by the Commissioner. What he said could
have had an innocent explanation. On the evidence we can conclude
that there was a serious misunderstanding between Dr Reid and
Mr Rowley. It was at best unwise for Dr Reid to have discussed
the investigation with any of the parties to it.

60. When Mr Maxton appeared before us he explained
that the inquiry had been

a long, frustrating and
at times stressful experience. The stress was caused by the frustration
I often felt at the lack of information I was getting about the
inquiry. There were times when I now appreciate, having read some
of the documentation, that that spilled over into my relations
with the Commissioner. While in no way detracting from the case
I was trying to put to her, I do apologise through you, Mr Chairman,
for any ill-temper I may at times, I think most of you would agree
rather uncharacteristically, displayed to her. I hope she will
accept that in the terms it is meant. (Q378)

61. The correspondence between Mr Maxton and the
Commissioner is annexed to the Commissioner`s report.[52]
We believe Mr Maxton, under the Code of Conduct, should willingly
have submitted himself to the scrutiny appropriate to his office.
Personal criticism of people involved in any capacity in the investigation
of a complaint should be avoided. In view of Mr Maxton`s apology,
which the Commissioner has accepted, we consider the matter closed.